State v. White
391 P.3d 311
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim found an uninvited, nearly-naked man in his master bathroom; a physical struggle followed during which the intruder used an iron and left blood on the iron.
- Police tested the blood; DNA matched a sample in Utah’s CODIS belonging to Coy Brandon White. Victim and his son could not identify White at trial.
- State charged White with aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The State moved under Utah R. Crim. P. 16 to compel a buccal swab; White objected. The court ordered production and later authorized use of force if White refused; White ultimately provided a sample voluntarily.
- Defense theory: misidentification or justification (self-defense/compulsion). Defense sought to cross-examine Victim about a 2010 assault plea-in-abeyance and about I-918 (U-visa) petitions; the trial court limited questioning after an in camera review and excluded some cross-examination.
- During testimony Victim twice (one instance off-record) stated he felt "more accused than the defendant;" the court struck the comment and denied defendant’s mistrial motion. Jury convicted; White appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | White's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could authorize use of force under Rule 16 to obtain buccal DNA without a warrant | Rule 16 provides procedures and adversary hearings giving protections that satisfy constitutional reasonableness; Easthope controls | Rule 16 cannot authorize warrantless use of reasonable force to take DNA; a warrant is required | Court: Affirmed—trial court correctly granted Rule 16 motion and could authorize nonintrusive sampling (force if necessary); Easthope and reasonableness analysis support result |
| Whether trial court erred by barring cross-examination of Victim about a prior 2010 assault (character evidence) | State: exclusion was within court’s discretion; defendant failed to preserve specific Rule 404/405 or Rule 608 arguments | White: prior assault was admissible to challenge Victim’s peaceful-character testimony and credibility | Court: Claims unpreserved; did not reach merits and rejects relief on preservation grounds |
| Whether court abused discretion by preventing questioning about Victim’s refusal to provide I-918 petitions | State: petitions’ contents were not shown exculpatory; in camera review found nothing favorable; refusal to hand documents was not probative | White: refusal to disclose suggests petitions contained inconsistencies/motive to fabricate (immigration benefit) | Court: Cross-exam about refusal was irrelevant; in any event exclusion harmless—defense presented U-visa process evidence and asked Victim if he filed petitions |
| Whether trial court should have granted mistrial after Victim said he felt "more accused than the defendant" | State: comment was inadvertent, isolated, and harmless given overall evidence | White: comment undermined his self-defense theory and warranted mistrial | Court: Denial of mistrial proper—statements were passing, not intentionally elicited, and not prejudicial given the strong evidentiary record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Easthope, 668 P.2d 528 (Utah 1983) (adversary discovery process may satisfy constitutional protections for compelled bodily samples)
- State v. Allen, 108 P.3d 730 (Utah 2005) (mistrial standard; judge’s discretion reviewed for plain error)
- State v. Bakalov, 979 P.2d 799 (Utah 1999) (trial court’s discretion to condition discovery remedies for noncompliance)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2013) (buccal swab described as a minor intrusion in DNA-collection context)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (cumulative-error doctrine)
- State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987) (harmless-error standard and confidence in verdict)